Tag Info

The Nazi Party destroyed the political apparatus of the working class, broke the trade union movement, and handed the economy over to German capitalist monopolies. "Socialism" in the mind of the NSDAP involved either the SA's street fighting fantasy of a German nation recast in the image of the right wing worker; or, the NSDAP's central apparatus' ...

An earlier mass killing against a political affiliation is the Coushatta massacre in 1874. Members of the White League, a white supremacist organisation composed of white Southern Democrats, assassinated six white Republicans and five to 20 freedmen who were witnesses. Their goal was to overturn Republican rule and install Democrats in their place.

Until the 1960s, the Republican party was the centrist, "Establishment" party, and the Democrats were an unlikely mixture of right and left, including George Wallace and George McGovern. This was because after the Civil War, the Democratic party housed almost everyone who was not a Republican, including northern laborers, the rural poor and Southern landed ...

I don't think they were particularly unusual in that regard. At the time of Andropov, all the other nations with permanent membership on UN Security Council (USA, England, France, and China) were lead by WWII-era politicians. All were WWII veterans, with the obvious exception of Margaret Thatcher.
The USA wouldn't get its first post WWII-generation ...

The same reason the "Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea" is a democratic republic... It wasn't. There was a time when socialism really seemed like the way forward, tempering free enterprise with thoughtful regulation and investing workers in the means of production. So non-socialists like the Nazis and Communists called themselves socialist to ...

Reagan's weakness was that he was not a member of the "Eastern Establishment." Ford was, as well as the incumbent President. That fact led many "established" Republicans to support him "automatically".
Reagan needed a "breakthrough". He came close in New Hampshire, with something like 49.5% of the two-candidate vote. Topping Ford there would have been huge. ...

The Republican Party was always, since its founding, a "pro-business" party.
The party was formed from the remnants of the previous pro-business party, the Whig Party, when that party split over the expansion of slavery into the territories in the early 1850's.
The two platforms are not as disjoint as they may at first appear. Northern business interests ...

The correct question would be "Why the Chinese manage to change their leaders smoothly?" Lifetime leadership is typical for Communist dictators, not only in Soviet Union. Cuba, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Roumania,... you can continue yourself.
The two leaders of Communist Russia who stepped down, Khrushchev and Gorbachev,
stepped down as a result of coup d'...

The big difference is right there under your nose: The Presidency. Its a very powerful office under the US system, and its (more or less) directly elected in a (more or less) first-past-the-post manner.
France does have a similar system with its presidency, but it is (only?) a semi-presidential system, not the full-blown one the US has. Under the French ...

Yes, they did
(that is, the quoted assertion is not true)
Some members of this party indeed called themselves "Democratic-Republicans", although not consistently.
The Wikipedia article for this party states (in its main text) what I was taught in grade school, namely that the party was called "Republican" during the period it was in existence. Yet further ...

An under-appreciated reason for the collapse of the Federalists is that they were, essentially, a neo-mercantalist party. Hamilton and others were pro-industrialization not so much because they wanted to see individuals get rich through manufacturing, but because industrialization made the United States a more powerful nation in the international system (...

Both the US and British legislative bodies underwent transformations in the last half of the 18th and first half of the 19th century, and it is useful to study them together. At the beginning of the period, neither had "political parties" as we understand them. They evolved political parties as a way of forcing a diversity of viewpoints into actionable ...

I would date the "turning" of the Republican party into a pro business party to William McKinley 1897-1901.
The Republicans dominated the Presidency for 72 years between 1861-1933. But this can be subdivided into two 36 year sub periods 1861-1896, and 1897-1932.
It's true, as one of the other respondendents pointed out, that the Republicans absorbed the ...

I'm not sure that anyone is responsible for this shift; I rather suspect that politics is stochastic more often than planned. I'm not sure that it is possible to give an answer that a panel of objective observers would agree with. With those caveats in mind, I'd offer the following description of events.
I think the dominant player is FDR. FDR built a ...

In addition to the "patrician" Optimates and "plebeian" Populares, there was also a third group - the Equites - which today we might think of as a kind of 'upper middle class'. To complicate matters still further, by no means all members of the Patrician class were associated with the Optimates faction. Perhaps the best-known example is Julius Caesar, who ...

I searched the internet, and found no reference to Hitler's being a Reichstag deputy or sponsoring legislation up to 1933. This tallies with my personal recollection of no such activity. A commenter found a source (John Toland's biography of Hitler) that supports an inference that he was a deputy up to 1928 (in the early days, before the Nazis' power became "...

It wasn't socialist, and in fact was vehenmently opposed to actual socialists/communists. The Reichstag Fire was one of the causes for Nazi party to grab power and was sold as the beginnings of a communist uprising.
Socialism was not considered right wing in 1930s Europe. (Remember in the USA "Socialist" is used as a dirty word. In Europe this is not the ...

Due to the way party alignment works, neither party was uniformly left or right leaning until about 40 years ago.
Under the USA 2-party system, what would be parties elsewhere become "wings" in the existing two parties. What wings identify and support which of the two parties is called "alignment". Under the previous alignment (the "New Deal" alignment of ...

Not till 1933. Germany Wikipedia has lists of all Reichstag members; Hitler only became a member in 1933 after he was already chancellor. In the Weimar Republic the chancellor didn't have to be a member of the Reichstag (contrary to the Federal Republic, where the chancellor must be a member of the Bundestag).

You are missing the trees for the forest.
Congress and the Presidency are two very different beasts, elected in two very, very different ways.
The dominance of two political parties in presidential races is because all of the larger and medium sized states are winner take all at the Electoral College. Many of these, the so-called swing states, will be ...

Note that the first Congressional nominating caucus was in 1796, and was only to select a VP nominee. Thus the "King Caucus" system really only operated for POTUS candidates for 6 election cycles (1800-1820).
In the USA, the presidential election is essentially a set of separate elections where every state simultaneously votes for its state's choice of ...

. . . . The election of 1824 brought
an end to both the Democratic-Republican-dominated “era of good feeling” and the
use of a congressional caucus as a nominating device. Although the Democratic-
Republican caucus nominated William Crawford of Georgia as its candidate, three
other candidates (John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and Andrew Jackson) were ...

I could not find any positive references, which does not, of course, prove that this has never happened.
However, I think this is not very likely because ratting a party member would expose his cell members to the risk of arrest (if the ratted member rats them).

I assume your interest is primarily in Marxist social democracy as opposed to Marxist bolshevism or Marxist council communism.
Regarding social democracy:
"Welfare" is a suspicious term for an avowedly Marxist party like the 1925 SPD (Germany). The Heidelberg Program (1925, http://www.marxists.org/deutsch/geschichte/deutsch/spd/1925/heidelberg.htm ) ...

The "Nazi" Party STARTED OUT as the National Socialist German Workers Party, with a left-leaning, socialist bent.
That is, until it enrolled "Member Number 7," aka Adolf Hitler, who had other ideas.
A World War I veteran, Hitler figured out the the "Dolchstoss" legend, the idea that Germany had been winning World War I until it was "stabbed in the back" by ...

Jefferson and Adams' policy debates over Revolutionary War debts and relations with France and Great Britain became very public and personal throughout Washington's presidency and into the Presidential election of 1796. Their surrogates circulated vicious personal attacks during Adams' Presidency, while Jefferson served as Vice President. Their followings ...

What led to the rise to political parties was the fact that Hamilton and Jefferson had conflicting views. Also the fact that Washington favored Hamilton’s ideas which made Jefferson very mad because he wanted to have his ideas favored also. Last but not least the two parties fought over governmental issues also played a part in the rise of political parties.

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists started around the Constitutional Ratification, during the adoption fight but eventually grew under Hamilton to the political party that they became during the first few presidential administrations. Afterwards you had like-minded groups grow because the only way to get elected, or names on the ballots because of the way ...

It sounded good for marketing purposes, for engaging the average industrial worker without the revolutionary baggage of Communism.
It is important to understand that when it comes to statism, right and left don't matter that much. While they will give different reasons why they're chaining you down, enslaving you or murdering you and there may be different ...

National flags represent the country... or the state?
Ok, in the books it is the country, but the state is who actually manages the country. And of course, patriotism and nationalism are powerful tools, so it makes sense to use them.
If you are lucky, the state (and those who support the status quo) will not use those tools in a partisan way, but for the ...